```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15126-15129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5930]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Technical Assistance on Data Collection--General Supervision 
Enhancement Grants

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes three funding priorities under the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Assistant 
Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2007 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an 
identified national need to provide technical assistance to improve the 
capacity of States to meet data collection requirements relating to 
their State academic assessment systems.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to 
Larry Wexler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 4053, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2700. If you 
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following 
address: [email protected].
    You must include the term ``Data Collection Priorities'' in the 
subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Wexler. Telephone: (202) 245-
7571.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should 
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while 
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed priorities in room 4019, 550 12th Street, 
SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week 
except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking

[[Page 15127]]

record for these proposed priorities. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding 
additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use any of these proposed priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting 
applications we designate the priority as absolute, competitive 
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority 
follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either 
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent 
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority 
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets 
the competitive preference priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational 
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the 
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over 
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

    Note: The Secretary is proposing three separate funding 
priorities addressing data collected under Part B and Part C of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended (IDEA). 
Although these are being proposed in one notice, we anticipate these 
priorities would be funded through separate competitions. Eligible 
entities must submit separate applications under each of the 
priorities for which they wish to apply.

Priorities

Background of Proposed Priority A--Modified Academic Achievement 
Standards

    On December 15, 2005, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register (70 FR 74624) requesting public 
comment on proposed regulations under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001. The proposed regulations would provide States with flexibility 
regarding State, local educational agency (LEA), and school 
accountability for the achievement of a group of students with 
disabilities who can make significant progress, but may not reach 
grade-level achievement standards within the same time frame as other 
students.
    The proposed regulations would permit States to develop modified 
academic achievement standards (and assessments that measure 
achievement based on those standards) that are aligned with grade-level 
content standards. States and LEAs would be permitted to include the 
proficient and advanced scores from assessments based on modified 
academic achievement standards in adequate yearly progress (AYP) 
determinations, subject to a cap of 2.0 percent at the district and 
State levels based on the total number of students in the grades 
assessed.
    The Secretary anticipates issuing final regulations in the near 
future. We further anticipate that, once these regulations become 
effective, many States will need support in developing, enhancing, or 
redesigning their assessment systems to include assessments that are 
aligned with modified academic achievement standards.

Proposed Priority A--Modified Academic Achievement Standards

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for grants to support States with one or 
more of the following activities: (1) Development of modified academic 
achievement standards which must be based on the State's academic 
content standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled; (2) 
development of State assessments based on modified academic achievement 
standards; and (3) development of clear and appropriate guidelines for 
individualized education program (IEP) Teams to use in determining 
which students should be assessed based on modified academic 
achievement standards, and the development and implementation of 
training on those guidelines.
    Assessments based on modified academic achievement standards must 
be designed to generate valid scores that can be used for AYP 
accountability purposes under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
(NCLB). These data also will be part of the data required by the Part B 
State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports on the 
performance and participation of children with disabilities on State 
assessments under section 616 of the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act.
    Applicants must include information in their application on how 
they will work with experts in large-scale assessment and special 
education to ensure that they are designing modified academic 
achievement standards, and assessments based on those standards, that: 
(1) Address the needs of students with disabilities; (2) validly, 
reliably, and accurately measure student performance; and (3) result in 
high quality data for use in evaluating the performance of schools, 
districts, and States. The experts selected should represent the range 
of skills needed to develop assessments based on modified academic 
achievement standards for students with disabilities that will meet the 
peer review guidelines for assessments published by the Department in 
the spring of 2004 that are available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf. Skill sets for experts must include 
experience with one or more of the following: (1) Large scale 
assessment; (2) standards-setting techniques; (3) assessment and 
measurement of children with disabilities; (4) accommodations and 
supports to assess grade-level content; (5) working with States to 
develop assessments; (6) development of criterion referenced tests and 
instruments; (7) psychometric evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the 
technical adequacy of assessment instruments; and (9) research and 
publishing in the area of assessment and psychometrics.
    Projects funded under this priority also must--
    (a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting;
    (b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant 
information and documents in a format that meets a government or 
industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
    (c) Provide a written assurance that the State's Assessment Office 
(e.g., the office that addresses accountability under the ESEA, as 
amended by the NCLB) was given the opportunity to contribute to the 
formulation of the application.

Background of Proposed Priority B--Alternate Academic Achievement 
Standards

    The Department's Title I regulations in 34 CFR part 200 regarding 
children with the most significant cognitive disabilities permit a 
State to develop alternate academic achievement standards for students 
with the most significant cognitive disabilities and to include those 
students' proficient and advanced scores on alternate assessments based 
on alternate

[[Page 15128]]

achievement standards in measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) at 
the State and district levels, subject to a cap of 1.0 percent of the 
total number of students in the grades assessed. Alternate assessments 
based on alternate achievement standards, as permitted by the Title I 
regulations, also are recognized as an appropriate assessment method in 
section 612(a)(16) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA).
    Alternate assessments that are used by States and local educational 
agencies (LEAs) under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
(NCLB), must be designed to generate valid data that can be used for 
purposes of determining AYP. Alternate assessments also must meet the 
requirements in 34 CFR 200.2 (State Responsibilities for Assessment) 
and 34 CFR 200.3 (Designing State Academic Assessment Systems), 
including the requirements relating to validity, reliability, and high 
technical quality; and fit coherently in the State's overall assessment 
system under 34 CFR 200.2. The alternate assessment must, among other 
things: (1) Be valid and reliable for the purposes for which the 
assessment system is used; (2) be consistent with relevant, nationally-
recognized professional and technical standards; and (3) be supported 
by evidence from test publishers or other relevant sources that the 
assessment system is of adequate technical quality for each purpose 
required under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB. States must include 
alternate assessment data in their State Performance Plan and Annual 
Performance Reports relative to performance and participation of 
children with disabilities on State assessments under the IDEA.
    The Department proposes the following priority because many States 
need assistance in: (1) Developing alternate academic achievement 
standards aligned with the State's academic content standards; (2) 
developing high-quality alternate assessments that measure the 
achievement of students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities based on those standards; and (3) reporting on the 
participation and performance of students with disabilities on 
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement 
standards.

Proposed Priority B--Alternate Academic Achievement Standards

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for grants to support States with one or 
more of the following activities: (1) Develop alternate academic 
achievement standards aligned with the State's academic content 
standards; (2) develop high-quality alternate assessments that measure 
the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities based on those standards; and (3) report on the 
participation and performance of students with disabilities on 
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement 
standards.
    Applicants must include information in their applications on how 
they will work with experts in large-scale assessment and special 
education to ensure that they are designing alternate academic 
achievement standards, and assessments based on those standards, that: 
(1) Address the needs of students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities; (2) validly, reliably, and accurately measure student 
performance; and (3) result in high quality data for use in evaluating 
the performance of schools, districts, and States. The experts selected 
should represent the range of skills needed to develop assessments 
based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities that will meet the peer review 
guidelines for assessments published by the Department in the spring of 
2004 that are available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf. Skill sets for experts must include experience with 
one or more of the following: (1) Large scale assessment; (2) 
standards-setting techniques; (3) assessment and measurement of 
children with disabilities; (4) accommodations and supports to assess 
grade-level content; (5) working with States to develop assessments; 
(6) development of criterion-referenced tests and instruments; (7) 
psychometric evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the technical 
adequacy of assessment instruments; and (9) research and publishing in 
the area of assessment and psychometrics.
    Projects funded under this priority also must--
    (a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting;
    (b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant 
information and documents in a format that meets a government or 
industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
    (c) Provide a written assurance that the State's Assessment Office 
(e.g., the office that addresses accountability under the ESEA, as 
amended by the NCLB) was given the opportunity to contribute to the 
formulation of the application.

Background of Proposed Priority C--Outcome Measures

    The cornerstone of any accountability system is the development of 
outcome indicators against which progress can be measured. State 
performance reports, self-assessments, and other extant data show that 
most States and Lead Agencies as defined under Part C of the IDEA 
(Section 635(a)(10)), as well as their local educational agencies and 
Early Intervention Service programs, do not have well developed systems 
for measuring the progress of infants, toddlers, and young children 
with disabilities and their families served under Part B and Part C of 
IDEA or methods to collect and analyze Part B and Part C outcome 
indicator data. Therefore, most States lack the capacity to collect 
sufficient data to determine the impact of early intervention and 
special education services for these children.

Proposed Priority C--Outcome Measures

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for projects that address the needs of 
States for technical assistance to improve their capacity to meet 
Federal data collection requirements in one or both of two focus areas.
    Focus Area One. This Focus Area supports the development or 
enhancement of Part B State systems for collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting preschool outcome indicator data. Projects funded under this 
Focus Area must focus on improving the capacity of the State to provide 
information that could be used to determine the following:
    (a) The outcomes associated with preschool children with 
disabilities participating in State Part B programs.
    (b) If the State has standards for preschool disability outcomes, 
whether preschool children with disabilities are meeting those 
standards.
    (c) Trend data on outcomes associated with preschool children with 
disabilities and the extent to which preschool children with 
disabilities are meeting State standards.
    Focus Area Two. This Focus Area supports the development or 
enhancement of Part C systems for collecting, analyzing, and reporting 
outcome indicator data. Projects funded under this Focus Area must 
focus on improving the capacity of the State to provide information 
that could be used to determine the following:

[[Page 15129]]

    (a) The outcomes associated with infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and their families participating in State Part C programs.
    (b) If the State has standards for early intervention outcomes, 
whether infants and toddlers with disabilities are meeting those 
standards.
    (c) Trend data on outcomes associated with infants and toddlers 
with disabilities and their families and the extent to which infants 
and toddlers with disabilities are meeting State standards.
    Projects funded under this priority also must--
    (a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting;
    (b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant 
information and documents in a format that meets a government or 
industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
    (c) Provide a written assurance that the State's Assessment Office 
(e.g., the office that addresses accountability under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001) was given the opportunity to contribute to the 
formulation of the application.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of proposed priorities has been reviewed in accordance 
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have 
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are 
those resulting from statutory and regulatory requirements and those we 
have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively 
and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the 
benefits of the proposed regulatory action justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.htm

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.373X Technical 
Assistance on Data Collection--IDEA General Supervision Enhancement 
Grant)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i)(2).

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-5930 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```